Either you’d be accessing the internet to query which monitor parameters are sensible each time a monitor connects, or you’d be periodically updating a list of sensible monitor parameters which is exactly what this update was.
The monitor sends you a list of accepted input formats. You can sanity check among the list for any outliers, without online information and without hardcoding limits.
How do you propose you sanity check numbers beyond checking whether or not they’re within a sane range, i.e. a hardcoded limit? It’s not like you can trust a monitor that’s potentially feeding you bad values to limit the number of bad values it gives you.
it would be bad UX to start using one of the garbage profiles and declare that the monitor’s now working.
it would be better UX to notice all the profiles have nonsensical values, fall back to a basic one all monitors typically support, and display an error message.
Either you’d be accessing the internet to query which monitor parameters are sensible each time a monitor connects, or you’d be periodically updating a list of sensible monitor parameters which is exactly what this update was.
The monitor sends you a list of accepted input formats. You can sanity check among the list for any outliers, without online information and without hardcoding limits.
How do you propose you sanity check numbers beyond checking whether or not they’re within a sane range, i.e. a hardcoded limit? It’s not like you can trust a monitor that’s potentially feeding you bad values to limit the number of bad values it gives you.
I can though.If all the profiles are garbage it’s beyond saving anyway, a single outlier can be ignored.
If all the profiles are garbage, then: